Little Green Lies: Twelve Environmental Myths - Jeff Bennett

Price: $29.95

Add to Cart:

Little Green Lies: An exposé of twelve environmental myths

Jeff Bennett

Paperback, 280 pages

ISBN: 9781921421648

Release Date: March 16th, 2012

$29.95

The natural environment matters a lot to many people. Their views on
issues such as recycling, population control, economic growth and
renewable energy are often held strongly and emotionally. But some of
these views are best described as ‘little green lies’. Sometimes people
bend the truth because they believe they are protecting others from the
harm caused by environmental decay. Others do it for personal gain. But
unlike ‘little white lies’, telling ‘little green lies’ is not harmless.
If they become so widely accepted that they form the basis of
government policies, our society can be worse off for them. They can
even end up causing environmental damage.

This tremendously valuable book faces a huge task in attempting to help
recent generations of school students to become better informed about
the "little green lies" that they have been told. As the book shows
clearly, the economic logic behind many environmental issues is complex
and simple approaches such as the "little green lies" serve no one well.
Ron Duncan, Emeritus Professor, Australian National University

At last, the intellectual firepower to cut through the “little green
lies” told by environmentalists. Professor Bennett turns his mind to
twelve key propositions at the core of green ideology, and demolishes
them all. This book must be on the bookshelf of every person concerned
for a better environment and a better society.
Gary Johns, Associate Professor, Public Policy Institute, Australian Catholic UniversityIf you are an environment zealot whose views are not swayed by reason and
evidence, this book is not for you. However, if you truly want to improve
the environment, this book will sharpen the way you think about policy and
add to your arsenal of tools for making our natural world a better place for
humans and their fellow travellers on the planet.
Terry L. Anderson, Executive Director of PERC and Senior Fellow, Hoover
Institution, Stanford University
From the book:In a nutshell

There are twelve propositions addressed in the twelve chapters of this
book. Although each proposition is considered in a separate chapter,
many of them are interrelated. In the list of the propositions that
follows, a short outline of each ‘little green lie’ is set out along
with a brief exposition of the counter-proposition that will be advanced
in this volume.

Proposition 1: ‘Peak Oil’ has been reached.
The annual production of oil, while rising over the last century, is
about to fall because of growing scarcity. Such is our dependence on oil
and the fast rate at which we are using it that we now need to take
active policy measures to save what we have left.
BUT
No-one knows for sure what petroleum reserves are available. As known
reserves are depleted, price rises stimulate more exploration and
technological advances that will expand the available supply of
petroleum as well as substitute energy sources.

Proposition 2: Renewable energy production should be stimulated.Non-renewable energy supplies are being depleted so quickly that we will
soon experience power shortages. Non-renewables are also ‘dirty’
sources of energy. Renewables must be stimulated to ensure the on-going
supply of clean energy.
BUT
Renewable energy sources are limited in their short to medium term
potential to meet demand. Picking ‘winners’ to be stimulated is likely
to be mistaken given rapidly evolving technological change. Renewables
have their own environmental downsides.

Proposition 3: Consumption choices need to be informed by products’ ‘food
miles’/’ecological footprint’/’embodied energy’/’virtual water’/’carbon
footprint’.People need to be aware of the impacts they have on energy/the
ecology/water/climate etc. when they buy goods and services so that they
can reduce their impact on that resource. Each of these resources is
scarce and we need to conserve them, especially for future generations.
BUT
By focusing on just one scarce resource (water, energy etc.) in their
consumption decisions, people can ignore their impacts on other scarce
resources and result in a ‘false economy’. What happens when the
‘virtual water’ index goes against the ‘embodied energy’ index? Which
index is ‘trumps’?

Proposition 4: World population should be capped.
More people mean more pressure on the world’s scarce resources,
including the environment. The only way to protect the environment, stop
starvation and ensure that there are enough resources for future
generations is to stop population growth.
BUT
People are a resource. They have the capability to develop innovative
technologies and institutions to deal with growing scarcity in specific
resources. New ways to satisfy peoples’ wants and new sources of scarce
resources can be discovered.

Proposition 5: Economic growth and trade are bad for the environment.Economic growth, fuelled by international trade, means more pressure on
scarce resources including the environment. To protect the environment
and to save resources for the future, trade should be restricted to cut
growth.
BUT
Trade and growth bring wealth to people. Wealth increases peoples’
demands for environmental protection and the ability of society to
provide environmental protection, especially through technological
development.

Proposition 6:No waste should go to landfill.Waste should not be wasted. It is a resource that can be re-used and
re-cycled. Sending waste to landfill means that more ‘virgin’ resources
must be harvested/mined. Waste in landfill can also be a source of air
and water pollution.
BUT
Recycling and re-using ‘waste’ is a process that uses scarce resources.
Policies that prevent landfill disposal can cause more resources to be
used than they save and do not necessarily reduce virgin resource use.
Landfills need not be pollution sources.

Proposition 7:Water and energy should be used ‘efficiently’, whatever it costs.Water and energy are scarce resources. Their use needs to be minimised
so that future generations will have enough. Governments should invest
in technologies that ensure the least amounts of energy and water are
used in producing goods and services.
BUT
Investing in ‘efficiency’ measures means using other scarce resources as
substitutes for energy and water. A ‘false economy’ results because the
other resources including labour and capital may well be scarcer than
energy and water.

Proposition 8:The environment is of infinite value and must not be harmed.
The environment provides us with our ‘life-support-system’. Without it
we cannot survive and so we should protect it at all costs. We should
make absolutely sure that rare and endangered species are cared for so
that their numbers increase.
BUT
Without the environment we could not exist and so its absolute value is
infinite. However, that is not the relevant question for policy. Changes
to the state of the environment yield finite benefits and costs that
need to be traded off.

Proposition 9: We must reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to avoid global climate change.Human induced global climate change is a serious threat to the continued
ability of the planet to support humanity and current ecosystems. The
damage caused by climate change will be so large that GHG emissions must
be reduced now.
BUT
Reducing GHG emissions would be costly. The decision to bear those costs
should be made with reference to the expected benefits reduced GHG
emissions would yield. Reducing GHG emissions will not eliminate the
risk of climate change.

Proposition 10: The care of the environment cannot be entrusted to the private sector.The environment provides ‘public goods’ that should be available to all
for free. That means the government has to be responsible for caring for
the environment. The private sector will either destroy it or try to
profit from it.
BUT
The public sector will face problems in managing the environment.
Information for decision making is costly. Incentives for politicians
and bureaucrats can conflict with public best interest. Private
solutions can be lower cost and better aligned with society’s
well-being.

Proposition 11: Agriculture and mining are always in conflict with the environment.Agriculture and mining are extractive industries which deplete our stock
of natural resources, often irreversibly. They also cause environmental
degradation including soil erosion, biodiversity loss and chemical
contamination of water and air.
BUT
While there are some trade-offs between agriculture, mining and the
environment these can be reduced through the use of management
techniques and technologies. Offsets and remediation work on farms and
mines can improve the environment.

Proposition 12: Decisions regarding the future of the environment should be made using the ‘precautionary principle’.If there is a risk that a proposed action will harm the environment, the
precautionary principle requires policy makers to place the burden of
proof on those proposing an action that it will not cause environmental
damage.
BUT
There is always some risk of environmental harm resulting from human
action. Demonstrating that there is no risk of harm is impossible. There
are also uncertainties associated with not taking action which the
precautionary principle ignores.
Jeff Bennett is Professor of Environmental Management in the Crawford
School of Economics and Government at the Australian National
University. He is a Distinguished Fellow of the Australian Agricultural
and Resource Economics Society and a Fellow of the Academy of Social
Sciences in Australia. Jeff lectures, researches and consults on the
economics of environmental policy issues.